Arb Assoc's view on freelancers and small businesses.

[Matthew Norman]

1 hour ago, Steve Bullman said:

Great post Matthew, your content has been missed 

Thank you, Steve. 

 

I don't know whether resurrecting this post will serve any beneficial purpose, but I think it goes without saying that the bias shown in the article says more about the author than the topic. The issue of subcontractors, freelancers, temporary workers, or however you want to label them, won't be resolved through namecalling and using derogatory terms. I believe there are larger concerns within the industry currently, such as its overall lack of representation, undervaluation, poor pay, and insufficient regulation. 

 

I feel that the major problem facing the industry is the size of it. It's so small that it simply gets swallowed up along with agriculture and fishing (!?), and any industry-specific concerns - such as the use of subbies - get  lost in the noise. 

[AHPP]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Norman said:

I believe there are larger concerns within the industry currently, such as insufficient regulation. 

 

Be careful what you wish for. Five hours ago you posted in another thread on here that it doesn't matter that someone passed their aerial rescue assessment, even though they couldn't do the rescue because you passed yours, even though you couldn't do the rescue. What regulation do you want? Two tests to fail (but pass) instead of one?

[Matthew Norman]

I refuse to believe that publishing an article necessarily means the AA endorses it. I feel it's potentially dangerous to go down this route. The AA has the right to post material that meets the minimum requirements of its submission guidelines, as long as the article remains within the realms of law and decency. The AA should, rightly, print an article that rebuts everything the original author published.

 

I am unaware what the editorial guidelines are for opinion writers, or what editorial control the AA has, but it does state quite clearly on articles and on the website that the views of the author do not represent the views of the organisation. This is good practice for any organisation that aims to provide balanced arguements in order to promote discussion aimed at improving the industry.

 

 

 

 

[AHPP]

I've got long hair, no tickets and a 54 plate van with a door that falls off from time to time. I'm out there killing hard trees (on a freelance basis). Do you think they'll publish my article?

[Mick Dempsey]

33 minutes ago, Matthew Norman said:

34 minutes ago, Matthew Norman said:

I believe there are larger concerns within the industry currently, such as its overall lack of representation, undervaluation, poor pay, and insufficient regulation.

 

1: Lack of representation, of whom and to whom? please explain.

2: Undervaluation, the market finds its level, if it wasn’t worth it, it wouldn’t get done

3: Poor pay, see number 2.

4: insufficient regulation, that’s what makes it such a great business. You will never regulate domestic treework.
In a world where anyone can change the brakes on theirs or anyone else’s car, stopping people from getting on a ladder to cut their own trees or prosecuting gardeners from doing the same is a none starter.

[AHPP]

£1/word, no VAT, minimum 500. Get in touch, Arb Association.

[Matthew Norman]

5 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

Be careful what you wish for. Five hours ago you posted in another thread on here that it doesn't matter that someone passed their aerial rescue assessment, even though they couldn't do the rescue because you passed yours, even though you couldn't do the rescue. What regulation do you want? Two tests to fail (but pass) instead of one?

 Hi AHPP

 

I didn't say it didn't matter. I did say to them to not sweat it (for now). I also mentioned they should keep it in mind as an area for them to improve. 

 

What regulation I would like to see discussed would be around improving the competency levels of newly qualified climbers, aimed at building their confidence when working at height. Maybe something along the lines of IRATA where a climber's competency levels are captured in a log book. 

 

I would also like to see regulation to prevent untrained and unqualified persons from being able to call themselves tree surgeons and carry out tree work operations - something similar to Gas Safe Register maybe.

 

When the HSE investigate tree work inuries and fatalities it is recorded simply as a 'contractor' or 'worker' or 'tree surgeon' having an incident, regardless of whether the injured party is a qualified and competent chainsaw user / tree climber or not.

 

If a higher number of untrained individuals, who label themselves as tree surgeons, are experiencing fatalities or injuries compared to trained individuals, it can distort the statistics regarding the occupational risks. These incidents, along with their corresponding data, are subsequently used in shaping policies that impact certified, skilled arborists nationwide. I would like to see a clearer distinction between fully-trained professionals and untrained individuals.

 

I'm happy to discuss this particular topic with anyone further elsewhere, but I feel it's detracting from the original topic thread here.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[AHPP]

Waffle. The ticket system is there and does nothing. He couldn't do it and he passed. You couldn't do it and you passed. He didn't give his CS38 back. I doubt you did either.

 

Right. Tag Mick back in. Or Sviatoslav. I suspect he has on opinion.

[Mick Dempsey]

It’s ok, I read it.

 

 

[GarethM]

I get a very licencing authority vibe instead of just a trade association.